Eway Trading Hangzhou Co Ltd v. Codi

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: EWAY Trading (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd. (P.R. China)
  • Defendant: Codi and IASEAHK (Jurisdiction not specified)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lance Y. Liu, Esq.
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-01861, N.D. Ill., 02/19/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are non-U.S. based and have targeted sales to U.S. consumers, including residents of Illinois, through interactive e-commerce stores, thereby committing tortious acts within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ cushion products sold on e-commerce platforms infringe a U.S. design patent for an ornamental cushion design.
• Technical Context: The dispute is situated in the competitive online marketplace for consumer home goods, where product appearance is a primary driver of purchasing decisions.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Design Patent No. D1,088,629 - Cushion

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents protect non-functional, ornamental aspects of an article of manufacture. The implicit problem addressed is the need for a new, original, and ornamental design for a cushion that is aesthetically distinct from prior designs.
• The Patented Solution: The 'D629 Patent claims the specific ornamental appearance of a cushion as depicted in its figures 'D629 Patent, col. 1:53-55 The design's key visual features include a generally square shape with rounded corners, a top surface with four distinct, circular indentations arranged in a square pattern, and a side profile comprised of three defined horizontal tiers 'D629 Patent, FIG. 1 'D629 Patent, FIG. 5 'D629 Patent, FIG. 7 The overall impression is one of a structured, tufted cushion.
• Technical Importance: In the consumer goods market, a distinctive ornamental design can serve as a source identifier and a key differentiator, influencing consumer choice and brand recognition Compl. ¶9

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim, which incorporates the drawings by reference. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a cushion as shown and described" 'D629 Patent, col. 1:50-52
• The essential visual elements of the claimed design include:
  • The overall configuration and shape of the cushion.
  • The four circular indentations on the cushion's top face.
  • The curved top-face edges.
  • The three-tiered side profile.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are cushions sold by Defendants Codi and IASEAHK through e-commerce stores, such as Amazon.com Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶11 The complaint identifies specific accused products by their Amazon Standard Identification Number (ASIN) Compl. ¶12 Compl. ¶15

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are described as cushions intended for consumer use Compl. ¶10 The complaint alleges these products are "identical or substantially identical" in appearance to the design claimed in the 'D629 Patent Compl. ¶12
• The complaint alleges Defendants target U.S. consumers, including those in Illinois, by operating "commercial internet-based e-commerce stores" that offer shipping to the United States and accept payment in U.S. dollars Compl. ¶4 The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison to allege that the accused IASEAHK cushion directly copies the patented design Compl. ¶12 The complaint further alleges that IASEAHK has engaged in a "bait and switch" practice by advertising one product but shipping an infringing one, evidenced by a customer review photo Compl. ¶15

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Design patent infringement is determined from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." The test is whether the resemblance between the patented design and the accused product is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing them to purchase one supposing it to be the other Compl. ¶14 The complaint's allegations are summarized below.

'D629 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Overall Visual Impression: The central question for the court will be whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the Defendants' products believing them to be the Plaintiff's patented design. The analysis will depend on a holistic comparison, not just a feature-by-feature breakdown.
• Evidentiary Sufficiency: A key issue may be the quality of the evidence. The infringement analysis will depend on whether physical samples or higher-resolution photographs of the accused products sold by both IASEAHK and Codi confirm the "identical" features alleged based on the images provided in the complaint Compl. ¶12 Compl. ¶16

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent cases, the "claim" is the visual design itself as depicted in the patent's drawings, rather than a set of written limitations. Therefore, claim construction does not involve defining disputed terms in the same manner as a utility patent case. The primary legal analysis focuses on comparing the accused product's design to the patented design as a whole. The scope of the claim is defined by the solid lines in the patent drawings 'D629 Patent, col. 1:64-67 The critical inquiry will not be the definition of a specific term, but the overall visual impression created by the patented design.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants are "working in active concert to knowingly and willfully... offer for sale, and sell" products that infringe "directly and/or indirectly" Compl. ¶18 The prayer for relief also requests an injunction against "Aiding, abetting, contributing to, or otherwise assisting anyone in infringing" upon the 'D629 Patent Compl. Prayer 1(b)

Willful Infringement

Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants' infringement has been and continues to be willful" Compl. ¶23 This allegation appears to be based on the assertion that Defendants acted "knowingly and willfully" and that the accused products are "identical or substantially identical" to the patented design, suggesting intentional copying Compl. ¶12 Compl. ¶18 The complaint seeks treble damages as a result Compl. Prayer 6

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This case will likely center on two primary questions for the court:

1. Substantial Similarity: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental design of the accused cushions sold by Codi and IASEAHK substantially the same as the design claimed in the 'D629 Patent? The outcome will depend on a visual comparison of the products as a whole, rather than on minor differences or similarities in individual features.

2. Scope and Knowledge: Can Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to prove that both named Defendants sold products with the accused design in the United States? Furthermore, for the willfulness claim, the case will question whether the evidence supports a finding that Defendants had knowledge of the patent or that their conduct amounted to objective recklessness with regard to the Plaintiff's patent rights.